FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAY 31 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15919 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 1 0 4 7 - CV- J - 2 1 - TE M A L I C E T U RN E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C O M M I S S I O N E R O F S O C I A L S E C U R I T Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 31, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A li ce T u rn erap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s o rd eraf firm in g th e C o m m issio n er ’s de ni a l of di s abi l i ty i ns ur a nc e be ne f i t s f orthe pe r i od be tw e e n A pr i l 28, 1993, a nd2

A pr i l 20, 1998, 42 U . S . C . § 405( g) . T urne ra r gue s the A dm i ni s tr a t i ve L a w J udge (A L J) erred i n (1 ) fi n d i n g h er o n l y sev ere i m p ai rm en tw as d eg en erat i v e d i sc di s e a s e ; ( 2) f

i ndi ng he rnon- e xe r t i ona l i m pa i rm e nt s w e r e nots e ve r e ; a nd ( 3) pos i ng em pl oym enthypo thet i ca l s t o the V ocat i on al E xp ert s ( V E s) thatfa i l ed t o d epi cther im p a irm e n ts a c c u r a te ly . W e a f f irm .

“ W e r e vi e w the C om m i s s i one r ’ s de c i s i on t o de t e rm i ne i f i ti s s uppor t e d by subst ant i al evi dence and based upo n p roper l egal st andards. ” L e w is v . C al lahan , 12 5 F . 3d 14 36 , 14 39 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). “ S ub st ant i al evi dence i s def i ned as m ore tha n as c i nt i l l a , i . e . , e vi de nc e tha tm us tdo m or e tha n c r e a t e as us pi c i on of the e x is te n c e o f

th e f a c t to b e e s tab lis h e d , a n d s u c h r e le v a n t e v id e n c e a s ar e a s o n ab le pers on w ou l d acc eptas adequat e t o sup po rtthe concl usi on . ” Foo te v . Cha ter , 67 F . 3d 15 53 , 15 60 (11th C i r. 19 95 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). T urner f i rs tas se rt s the A L J e rr ed i n fi nd i ng her onl y s ever e i m pai rm entw as degenerat i ve di sc di se as e, ar gu i ng the A L J f ai l ed t o con si der her other back c ondi t i ons a s s e pa r a t e s e ve r e i m pa i rm e nt s . W he r e , a s he r e , ac l a i m a nti s not i nv ol ved i n sub st ant i al gai nful ac t i vi ty, the C om m i ss i on er“ det erm i nes w hether a cl ai m anthas a‘ se vere ’ i m pai rm entor com bi nat i on of i m pai rm ent s thatcauses m ore than a m i ni m al l i m i t at i on on a c l ai m ant ’ s abi l i ty t o fun ct i on . ” D avis v . Sh a la la , 985 F . 2d 528, 532 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . T he c l a i m a ntbe a r s the bur de n of3

p r o v in g s h e h a s as e v e r e im p a irm e n t o rc o m b in a tio n o f im p a irm e n ts . Jones v . Apf el , 190 F . 3d 1224, 1228 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . “ A n i m pa i rm e ntorc om bi na t i on of i m pai rm ent s i s notse vere i f i tdo es no tsi gn i fi ca nt l y l i m i t[the cl ai m ant ’ s] ph ys i ca l or m ent al abi l i ty t o d o b as i c w ork act i vi t i es . ” 20 C . F . R . § 4 04 . 15 21 (a ); see a l so Cr ay ton v . C al lahan , 1 2 0 F .3 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T he A L J c on si dere d T urner’ s var i ou s bac k con di t i on s— a herni at ed di sc , s e v e r a l b u lg in g d is c s , o s te o p h y te f o rm a tio n e n c r o a c h in g o n th e n e rv e r o o t c a n a l, s c ol i os i s , os t e oa r thr i t i s , a nd bone s purr i ng— a s m a ni f e s t a t i ons of

he rde ge ne r a t i ve d is c d is e a s e r a th e rth a n s e p a r a te im p a irm e n ts . T h e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th is f i ndi ng. E a c h phy s i c i an w ho di a gnos e d T urne rc onc l ude d s he s uf f e r e d f r om d e g e n e r a tiv e d is c d is e a s e . A lth o u g h h e ro th e rb a c kc o n d itio n s w e r e n o te d in c e r t a i n phy s i c i a n r e por t s , the y w e r e e i the rnotde s i gna t e d a s di s t i nc tdi a gnos e s or w e r e notc ons i s t e nt l y c onc l us i ve . F ur the rm or e , T urne rdi d nots ubm i ta ny e vi de nc e tha tthe A L J ’ s f i ndi ng r e ga r di ng he rs e ve r e i m pa i rm e ntw a s i nc orr e c t ; nor d id s h e s u b m it a n y e v id e n c e to s h o w th e o th e rc o n d itio n s w e r e s e v e r e in d iv id u a lly . S ub st ant i al evi dence thu s s up po rt s thatthe A L J, i n fi nd i ng T urner’ s s ever e i m pai rm entw as degenerat i ve di sc di se as e, consi dere d the ef fe ctof ea ch i m pa i rm e nti ndi vi dua l l y a nd i n c om bi na t i on.4

T urne rne xta r gue s the A L J f a i l e d t o c ons i de rhe rpa i n, m e di c a t i on si de-e ff ec t s, and l ea rni ng di sabi l i ty a s s epar at e, no n-exert i on al i m pai rm ent s. W hen ac l a i m a nta tt e m pt s t o e s t abl i s h di s abi l i ty thr ough he row n t e s t i m ony of pa i n or other s ubj ec t i ve sy m pt om s, she m ustshow : (1) e vi dence of an und er l yi ng m edi ca l c o n d itio n ; a n d ( 2 ) e ith e r( a ) o b je c tiv e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e th a t c o n f irm s th e s e v e r ity o f th e a lle g e d p a in a r is in g f r o m th a t c o n d itio n , o r( b ) th a t th e o b je c tiv e ly d e te rm in e d m e d ic a l c o n d itio n is o f s u c h as e v e r ity it c a n b e r e a s o n ab ly e x p e c te d to g iv e r is e to th e a lle g e d p a in . H ol t v . Sul l i v an , 92 1 F . 2d 12 21 , 12 23 (11th C i r. 19 91 ). “ A cl ai m ant ’ s s ubj ec t i ve t es t i m on y s up po rt ed by m edi ca l evi dence that sa t i sf i es the pai n st andard i s i t se l f s uffi ci entt o sup po rta f i nd i ng of di sabi l i ty. ” Fo o te , 67 F . 3d at15 61 . “ If the [C om m i ss i on er ] deci des nott o cre di tsuch te s tim o n y , h e m u s t d is c r e d it it e x p lic itly , a n d a r tic u la te e x p lic it a n d a d e q u a te re as on s f or do i ng so. ” B r ow n v . Sul l i v an , 921 F . 2d 1233, 1236 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T h e A L J d idn o t errin ap p lyin g th e p ain stan d ar d o r d iscr ed it in g T u rn er ’s s ubj e c t i ve t e s t i m ony of

pa i n be c aus e the m e di c a l e vi de nc e doe s notc onf i rm the s e ve r i ty of

pa i n T urne ra l l e ge d t o ha ve s uf f e r e d. E ve ry m e di c a l a s s e s s m e nt expres si ng an op i ni on abou tT urner’ s c apac i ty, exce ptfor one, concl ud ed T urner c oul d pe r f

orm ar a nge of

l i ghtw ork w i th s om e a ddi t i ona l l i m i t a t i ons , s uc h a s notTurner also contends the ALJerred in not findingher ina bility to stoop, which was 1 c a us e d b y her p ain, a

dis tin c t severeimp air

ment. Ev idenc esu

pp or ts t hat Tur ner’ s in a bil ity to stoop is a limi tation resulting f rom her de g enerative disc disea se and not a separate impairment. The ALJadequately

addre ssed Turner’s inability to stoop as such. 5 s t oopi ng. F ur the rm or e , T urne r ’ s da i l y a c t i vi t i e s , i nc l udi ng he ra dm i s s i on tha ts he l oo ked for w ork w hi l e s he w as al l egedl y di sabl ed, w er e i ncon si st entw i th h er c o m p la in ts o f

d is ab lin g p a in . A lth o u g h T u rn e r ’s d e g e n e r a tiv e d is c d is e a s e c o u ld re as on abl y c ause pai n, the pai n she al l eged i s di spropo rt i on at e t o the m edi ca l e vi de nc e . S ubs t a nt i ve e vi de nc e thus s uppor t s the A L J ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on, and the A L J di d n oterr i n fi nd i ng T urner’ s s ubj ec t i ve pai n w as no ta s ever e i m pa i rm e nt . S i m i l a r l y , the A L J di d note rri n di s c r e di t i ng T urne r ’ s t e s t i m ony

1 r e ga r di ng s i de - e f

f e c t s f r om he rm e di c a t i ons be c aus e the r e c or d i nc l ude s no e v id e n c e th a t T u rn e rc o n s is te n tly c o m p la in e d to h e rd o c to r s o f a n y s id e - e f

f e c ts . T u rn er fu rth er arg u es th e A L J sh o u l d h av e fo u n d h er l earn i n g d i sab i l i ty a s e v e r e im p a irm e n t b e c au s e , a c c o r d in g to r e h ab ilita tio n c o n s u lta n t D r . G r a y , it r e nde r e d he r“ f

unc t i ona l l y i l l i t e r a t e ” s uc h tha t“ a ny a tt e m pt s a tc om pe t i t i ve e m pl oy m e ntw i l l c ont i nue t o be i n va i n. ” T he A L J m us ts t a t e w i th pa r t i c ul a r i ty the w e ig h t it g iv e s d if

f e r e n t m e d ic a l o p in io n s a n d th e r e a s o n s f o rth a t w e ig h t. Sh arf arz v . B ow en , 825 F . 2d 278, 279 ( 11th C i r . 1987) . T he A L J “ m a y r e j e c ta ny m edi ca l op i ni on i f the evi dence s up po rt s acontraryfi nd i ng . ” I d. a t 2 8 0 .6

T he A L J w as fr ee t o g i ve l i tt l e w ei gh tt o D r. G ray’ s opi ni on . S oci al Se c u r i ty r e g u l a t i o n s d e f i n e i l l i t e r a c y a s “ th e i n ab i l i ty t o r e a d o rw r i t e . ” 2 0 C. F. R. § 404. 1564( b) ( 1) . T urne r , how e ve r , t e s t e d a tthe s i xth gr a de l e ve l f orr e a di ng a nd ar i thm et i c, and atthe fourth g ra de l evel for s pel l i ng . A l tho ug h h erabi l i t i es ar e m o r e lim ite d th a n h e rh ig h s c h o o l d ip lo m aim p lie s , T u rn e rs ta te d s h e w a s ab le to w ri t e, an d th atsh e co u l d read th e B i b l e an d n ew sp ap er. E v en h er p astw o rkas a w a r e hous e ope r a t orr e qui r e d he rt o r e a d f orm s a nd oc c a s i ona l l y e nt e rda t ai nt o a c om put e r . F ur the rm or e , othe re vi de nc e c ontr a di c t s D r . G r a y ’ s c onc l us i on re gardi ng T urner’ s e m pl oyabi l i ty. T w o V E s opi ned thatj ob s e xi st ed i n sub st ant i al nu m bers for s om eone w i th T urner’ s l i m i t at i on s. A cc ordi ng l y, the A L J di d n oterr in d is c r e d itin g D r . G r a y ’s o p in io n s . F i nal l y, T urner ar gu es the A L J e rr ed i n p osi ng hypo thet i ca l s t o the V E s that f a i l e d t o d e p i c th e ri mp a i rme n t s a c c u r a t e l y . O n c e ac l a i ma n th a s e s t ab l i s h e d s o me di s abi l i ty tha tpr e ve nt s he rf r om pe r f orm i ng he rpa s tr e l e va ntw ork, a s he r e , the bur de n s hi f

t s t o the C om m i s s i one rt o de m ons tr a t e the r e a r e as i gni f i c a ntnum be rof jo b s in th e n a tio n a l e c o n o m y th e c la im a n t c a n p e r f o rm . Jones , 1 9 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 8 . In o rd er fo r th e A L J t o rel y o n a V E ’ s t est i m o n y t o p ro v e th e ex i st en ce o f j o b s a cl ai m antca n p er form , the A L J m ustpo se a hypothet i ca l thatadequat el y des cr i bes al l the cl ai m ant ’ s i m pai rm ent s and ac cura t el y r ef l ec t s hereducat i on al l evel , age,7

a n d w o rks k ills a n d e x p e r ie n c e . I d. a t1229. T h e h yp o th e tic a l, h o w e v e r , n e e d o n ly in c lu d e lim ita tio n s s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d . I d. T h e AL J p o s e d d e t a i l e d h yp o th e t i c a l s t o two VE s o v e rth e c o u r s e o f two s e p a r a te h e a r in g s , w h ic h in c lu d e d T u rn e r ’s in ab ility to s to o p . T h e h yp o th e tic a ls di d notne e d t o i nc l ude T urne r ’ s s ubj e c t i ve t e s t i m ony of pa i n a nd s i de - e f

f e c t s f r om he rm e di c a t i ons be c aus e , a s e xpl a i ne d above , s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the A L J’ s di sc re di t i ng thi s t es t i m on y. N or di d the hypo thet i ca l s nee d t o i ncl ud e D r. G r a y ’ s opi ni ons r e ga r di ng T urne r ’ s f unc t i ona l i l l i t e r a c y ore m pl oy abi l i ty , a s the A L J s peci fi ca l l y i ncl ud ed T urner’ s r ea di ng , spel l i ng , and ari thm et i c l evel s i n h er h yp o th e tic a ls . T h e h yp o th e tic a ls p o s e d to th e V E s w e r e th u s n o t in e rr o r . AF F I RME D.